This starts to extend exactly the points that I think should be discussed.
As I noted earlier I am clearly not doing a good job of expressing the ideas
I want to convey. I am going to spend an hour with Paul, hopefully tomorrow,
and deal with this one-on-one with a goal of refining my message. NOT
marketing, but trying to convey some concepts that I think are extremely
important for your businesses and ours. Hopefully more (and more lucidity)
to follow.
Regards
Elliot Noss
Tucows inc.
416-538-5494
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org]On Behalf Of Paul Chvostek
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 10:35 PM
> To: discuss-list@opensrs.org
> Subject: Re: Tucows survey
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 05:07:33PM -0400, Elliot Noss wrote:
> >
> > I would bet that the true differentiation of your business is trust,
> > reliability and reputation.
>
> Trust, reliability and reputation *can't* be differentiating factors if
> a large number of trustworthy and reliable providers exist.
>
> The differentiating factors must be a combination of services, with a
> manageable interface (whether it's by https or by telephone). If I make
> my services generic, I reduce their relative value. If my management
> interface consists of an excellent bedside manner, that's fine. But the
> reason we ATTRACT customers has nothing to do with customer service, it
> has to do with marketing.
>
> > The most important point that I take away from this thread is
> that I haven't
> > done a good enough job of describing what I mean by "innovating at the
> > edge". I have written a number of times in the past about the
> smart service
> > provider focusing on customer service and customer acquisition as core
> > competencies. Some of you have played that back as "we would
> just be direct
> > marketers and answering phones in support" and not doing
> anything technical.
>
> I don't think it's quite that. While I have great respect for Tucows, I
> honestly feel that this whole "customer service definition" thing is a
> bit of a shifting target. Like the DMA and others trying to impose new
> definitions for "spam" and "confirmed opt-in", I get the feeling that
> you've come up with a definition of "customer service" that conveniently
> gets updated as objections arise. My impression may not be warranted,
> but I can certainly confirm that what I had thought of as customer
> service did not include everything you describe.
>
> If I were a marketing whiz instead of an experienced geek, I would
> focus on market research, benefit analyses, whatever. But I'm not. I
> write software and manage systems that allow Internet services to be
> provided in a way that so far has managed to attract and retain enough
> customers to keep a roof over my head and food in my belly. *My* focus
> is writing software and managing systems. So your definition of
> customer service, while an interesting read, doesn't offer me practical
> methods to change my way of doing business in a way that will be more
> compatible with Tucows' new product offerings.
>
> > Customer service. Do you know why your customers are calling
> you? What the
> > top ten reasons are every month? Do you create new faq items monthly to
> > address these issues? Do you push new self-help tools to your customers
> > quarterly to address these issues?
>
> If I could answer these questions, then my differentiating factors would
> be customer-service-related rather than technical. But I can't, and the
> fact that I still have customers despite that would seem to indicate
> that other approaches can work also.
>
> > Customer Acquisition. Do you track where your new customers
> come from? Do
> > you sell using features or benefits (this is a whole discussion
> in itself as
> > I think our WHOLE industry is way off the mark here)?
>
> This is market research in a market whose products are all technical.
> That doesn't make it a technical issue. If my interest were marketing
> rather than software and systems, I could answer these questions.
>
> After all that, the only real objections I can come up with are that
> this service competes directly with services that I (and a number of us)
> already provide, and I'm frustrated that my use of the Tucows Registrar
> has contributed to the development of products whose widespread use will
> increase competition in an area that brings me revenue.
>
> And it's a spurious objection, because I have no right to object to
> Tucows' efforts to generate profit for its shareholders, when I'm not
> even a shareholder.
>
> --
> Paul Chvostek <paul@it.ca>
> Operations / Abuse / Whatever
> it.canada, hosting and development http://www.it.ca/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:44 EDT